GXT

The Prius is ugly, but what I am getting at is that I could buy an Infiniti G37 for less $$$ than the Volt... or CTS for about the same amount of money. Those are good looking cars.

I see what you are saying, but the spirit of what I wrote still stands. The Volt is going to compete with with most compact cars for fuel efficiency, most midsize cars for size, most hybrids for fuel efficiency, and many entry luxury cars because of price. To take your example, if I am going to spend $35,000-$40,000 on a Volt, I could buy a nicely equipped 3 series for that much money. Or I could buy an Accent for 10,000 and save $25,000-$30,000. These are the real-world choices that people will make.

"I think I may lose my job, so I guess I should go buy a new Hyunda, GM or Ford!" If you think there is a possibility that you may lose your job you shouldn't be buying a new car. When did our society get so focused on instant self-gratification?

While it may be "catchy" to claim the Volt has no competition, it isn't true at all. It competes with every other car on the market. The Volt has some design decisions that have relatively high tradeoffs. That will make it an inferior choice to a lot of people in the same way that a Corvette is an inferior choice for the vast majority of people (even if it is a very fine sports car). Here are a list of the reasons why the Volt may be an inferior choice for someone: Anyone who drives significantly more than 40 miles per day Anyone who drives significantly less than 40 miles per day Anyone looking for really good highway fuel economy Anyone who doesn't have a place to plug in Anyone who doesn't want to spend $35,000-$45,000 on a car Anyone who doesn't live within the limited markets in which the Volt will sell Anyone beyond the first few thousand people that will get one Anyone who doesn't want to be a beta tester for GM Anyone looking for 5 seater Anyone looking for cost effectiveness Anyone looking for performance Anyone looking for a really good looking car Anyone who doesn't believe in taking government incentives etc.

He's also rich and famous enough not to worry about the downsides of the Volt that will likely make it inferior for most people... cost and availability. Plus GM hasn't yet come clean about the fuel economy on the ICE. Man that Prius is one ugly car.

"* Most of its products are in the bottom quartile of fuel economy. * GM is a design generation behind Toyota in green powertrains. * The Volt will be too expensive to be a big commercial success." Except I would say they are actually two generations behind in hybrids. Perhaps we will see an end to those silly "More rebadges than anyone getting 30+ MPG highway" commercials and all this "the Volt will save GM" nonsense. GM should try building it rather than just advertising the illusion of it.

In the interest of "keeping it real": 1) The AIG money has given the US partial ownership. So if you want to pretend the auto loans aren't a bailout, then I suppose you could do the same thing for the AIG buyout. 2) AIG used to make money and has a good chance of making money again. GM hasn't made money for a long time and likely will never get out from under their debt. 3) A failure by AIG by all accounts that I have heard would be catastrophic. GM's failure will be hard but is a much less substantial affair. 4) The eventual cost to save GM will likely be in the 100 Billion range. I have trouble keeping up, but I believe they have already received 14 Billion + 6 Billion to GMAC + future 16 Billion + future retooling money + EREV subsidies. Also they are worth -86 Billion as of the end of 2008. Given the cost/risk as compared to AIG, AIG is where the money should go. I will agree that the union being blamed for GM's problems is just silly and the AIG bonuses are horrible. But that is US-capitalism for you.

Whats wrong with it is that GM is trying to pretend they can be profitable. GM can't expect to gain share. That ship has sailed. They can't be everything to everyone. They need to find a way to be profitable at the 10-12% share that they can expect long term.

That isn't why. They could buy a Cobalt with more performance and for even less if price was such an issue. And these big hulking masses aren't going to appeal to your typical GTI/Civic buyer. Growing up I always wanted a trans am or a camaro. When I was old enough to afford one I went shopping. I was so disappointed. They looked so big from the outside but when you got in they were overly-small with horrible visibility and terrible interiors. For some reason the sheer thickness of the door really stuck with me. The whole car just made so little sense. I think the whole experience actually marked my switch to imports. I don't see anything particularly new here. The HP would be nice, but the domestics have had the HP advantage for a long time and it hasn't done much for them. I suspect those interiors are a large part of the barrier to import buyers. On that subject... those interiors are horrible! Saying that the Camaro's interior isn't that bad buy comparing it to the couldn't-be-any-uglier Charger and Mustang interiors doesn't say much. Chrysler can't even remember what it was like to have a clue about interiors. And what is with Ford? Are they putting the same ugly door on every vehicle they sell? You'd think if you were going to standardize on something you'd try to make it not ugly. It is strange times when Hyundai sports the best interior.

I read it. I'm not sure I would go with a CR-V, but it sounds like she made a better-than-average choice. It is still too early to say, but we're actually leaning more to the Venza right now. I'd rather not buy a Toyota, but Honda doesn't seem competitive in the 4cyl/4WD segment... especially if you want leather. Did you actually read the article?

I agree they should have kept the EV1 going. The buses in and of themselves would have been fine. But GM sold them as an either/or situation in relation to hybrid cars, which was false. They actually used them as justification NOT to have a hybrid car, and to say anyone making a hybrid car was acting improperly. They also claimed, as you do now, that a bus uses more fuel than a car. While that is certainly true, one has to look at the numbers on the road. This was the most recent info I could find: http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archives/2008/...s_for_hybr.html As you can see, GM had only 1,000 buses on the road by the time Toyota had sold about 1,000,000 Prius. So while a hybrid bus may save more fuel than a hybrid car, it will not make up that difference of scale... especially given the mediocre results that GM's production buses gave as compared to non-hybrid new buses. More importantly for GM now, if they had focused on hybrid cars they might have a profitable car instead of what is probably a money losing bus (given those volumes). Plus I doubt they would have suckered themselves into the Volt if they had a competitive hybrid car. I see hybrid buyers unfairly demonized on this board all the time. But it is interesting that you consider buying a hybrid selfish.

Good article. There is some good information in there about some of GM's flaws (cars/architecture, plant capacity, etc.). I encourage those of you with a "shoot the messenger" view of CR to read the article anyways. I especially liked this, as it was one of GM's most boneheaded moves, and something I raised here years ago (and took quite some C&G flack for it): "While the automaker was working on systems for low-volume trucks and buses with no consumer visibility, Toyota and Honda were building popular-priced hybrids that average people could actually buy." This is also spot-on, and will become similarly apparent within a couple of years: "The Volt has flashy mileage numbers but is very expensive and will have limited utility for most drivers."

The problem is that you have associated perceived quality with reliability. Although that is what Ford (and to a slightly lesser extent GM) wants you to believe, of course there is no actual relationship. If you want examples that don't offend any pro-GM feelings, consider BMW, Mercedes, or VW... all of which seem to have excellent quality but have generally poor reliability. Same goes for car reviews.

I can relate Avant... I grew up in a dodge family and wife brought GM's into the mix. I've been turned off of GM ever since I had the displeasure of suffering hers. That was 2000, and as far as I can tell GM has improved. But then I recall that in school the kids who got the "improved" awards were often dumb as bricks both before and after the award. GM is in absolutely no danger of becoming class valedictorian. For the record, CR shows that the 99-03 are much worse than average reliability, 04 worse than average, and 05-08 average. Two of the areas that the new Malibu is showing problems is the "Fuel System" which includes the "engine computer" and the "Power equipment and accessories". Either of those could cover the repair mentioned in the original post. I know people like to blast CR, but they actually seem pretty accurate to me. Also take note that according to the "quality" studies that GM and Ford are pushing, that Malibu limping home is equivalent in "quality" to when an owner feels the car's suspension is a little too stiff. If 1 in 10 GM cars had major problems like these, then the odds of one owner having three different cars with three different major problems would be 1 in 1,000. If 1 in 5 cars, then 1 in 125 owners.

Or you could look at it that most of them may lose their jobs regardless, so why not get as much as you can in the meantime? For example, it sounds like GM has admitted that 30% of those 10,000 are going to be gone within a year regardless: http://www.peterboroughexaminer.com/Articl....aspx?e=1445790 One can only assume that, along with GM's other overly positive numbers, the actual cuts will be much deeper. And that is if GM even survives.

Wow... a lot of slight of hand in that release, especially around the fleet #s. "driven by a 75 percent reduction in fleet sales" "and slightly more fleet orders were able to be filled" The plan GM recently put out indicated that fleet sales went from (IIRC) ~24% to ~33%. They didn't break out cars/trucks as they do in their yearly report, but I'd be surprised if that didn't have a large car component. Think about that, GM probably only sold ~85,000 retail vehicles in Feb.

It is a strange coping method to blame everything on the media. Do you do that when you spill the milk? Stub your toe? You know who is losing out because of government support? Ford. Ford HAS been broken for quite some time and there are lots of reasons for that, the least of which is the media. All they've got going for them is they took out a HUGE loan (15 billion???) while they still could. They are chewing through the cash and will be in GM's position shortly. Maybe if GM/Chrysler were allowed to go under then Ford could survive.

I am totally amazed how the media still doesn't know how that "$70 vs $28/hour" number is created. I know they generally just spit out whatever is put in, but come on!

No problem. Sure, they could be losing more now! The ambiguity as well as the source is why I also wrote "apparently". I guess as I don't make up numbers I don't always feel compelled to provide sources (but I understand why you have to check). But mostly I thought this number was known amongst "GM's Biggest Fans and Toughest Critics" as it seems to be well known in other circles. Plus it just seemed fairly obvious to me.

The bondholders have a right to expect the terms of their bonds. They know GM stock is as good as worthless, so why would you expect them to accept it? I've been suggesting for a while now that GM needs to get profitable at 10-15% market share. If they can't do that then we may as well break them up right now.

Do you have a better example of a Lutz product not well thought out that is wasting resources that could have been spent on something better so that GM wouldn't have to be begging for your tax dollars and likely going bankrupt?

Well I imagine GM sells most cars at a loss right now. So selling the solstice/sky at a loss shouldn't be a suprise. The source is this: http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f70/gmi...axed-r-d-68685/ In case you don't like that source, as Bob himself wrote: "Doing a great roadster for $35,000-$45,000 is a feat mastered by several automobile companies. In fact, it’s relatively routine. It’s doing that desirable, high-content roadster for under $20,000 that challenges an automobile company." http://fastlane.gmblogs.com/archives/2005/...omise_of_1.html But mostly there was demand higher than production (even with extra capacity unused) for a car with a suprisingly low price. GM tends to over-produce, not under. What Lutz calls a "halo car" was most likely a loss leader. Nothing horribly wrong with that. I think it even worked a little bit. But it was nowhere near as effective as building a good small fuel efficient car would have been.

"The average consumer trades in a vehicle after two or three years" We are such a wasteful society.

Good point. Consider that the Soltice/Sky apparently COSTS GM $10,000 per vehicle sold. The Volt is another example.

Gotcha. My mistake, looks like it is Chapter 7 time then. Even under the Ch 11 scenarios proposed by GM in their latest plan, I believe the "Pre solicited" and "Cram Down" processes will be cheaper than what the US tax payer is about to foot if things continue as-is. But I have no idea if GM is overstating the CH11 costs as much as they are understating how much support they will need without going CH11. A lot of their downside to CH11 involves the market share loss that goes with it. I have news for them, with the publicity their situation is having that is going to happen regardless. But I don't think that is sufficiently factored into their non-CH11 scenario (they are predicting 20% US market share by 2012... which I believe is about what they had in Jan 09).